Life is Feudal Official Forum

[Lurm]

I actually read all of it.
Not ready for the same sized wall of a feedback right now
But in a few words:
1. Coins sink problem is not really solved. We evaluated items decay in warehouses and other containers and, unfortunately, it will put the load on DB we are not ready to handle yet.

I imagine looping through all "decayable" Items in the Database would put an insane load on any DB considering the sheer number of already created Items.
So my Idea to solve this would be as follows:

Instead of a decay time in days the Items would have a decay date (ingame date. e.g. 21.12.1012).
Every time a player opens a container (barkboxes, Warehouses...) the decay date of all the items in that container are compared to the current ingame date. If the items are decayed, they get removed from the game.

Why does this put smaller load on the DB? Let's first look on how it would be done usually.

On every maintenance tick (morning lag) the server would loop through every single decayable item, compare the dates and remove the item if necessary. This would have a runtime of n while n being the number of created items that have not decayed yet. The more items there are, the longer the runtime. (Nobody wants a 10sec + morning lag)

I assume the code to show the content of a container something along the lines of this (Every time a player opens a container):

Code: Select all

show_container_contents(container_id):
     contents = db_get(container_id) <-- here all the client/server communication happens
     draw_container(contents) <-- this is client side
end


Now we just loop through the contents (client side) and send a deletion request for every Item that has decayed.

Code: Select all

show_container_contents(container_id):
     contents = db_get(container_id) <-- here all the client/server communication happens
     current_date = get_date() <-- gets current ingame date
     for every item in contents do
          if current_date > item.decay_date() then
               db_remove(item.id) <-- send remove request to server (the server should check again before removing)
               contents.remove(item) <-- we don't want the decayed item to be falsely shown to the player
          end if
     end for

     draw_container(contents)
end


Now we basically created a schroedinger's item. It's both decayed and not decayed before you look inside the container
All of the calculations are now being done client side. The extra load on the DB is only the remove requests from decayed items (no checking all items anymore) and a server side check if the client's "calculation" ( current_date > item.decay_date ) is correct.

I believe that way item decay in lif is feasible.

[SonofKitt]

Nice idea,

I don't know much about coding but i'm just thinking about security.

Could individuals hack the client and make it so that none of their items decay with this system? or alternatively, could make it so that when raiding another guilds base during judgement hour, they have the opposite set so that each item is decay instantly?

You clearly know more about this than myself Lurm, thoughts?

[Lurm]

Nice idea,

I don't know much about coding but i'm just thinking about security.

Could individuals hack the client and make it so that none of their items decay with this system? or alternatively, could make it so that when raiding another guilds base during judgement hour, they have the opposite set so that each item is decay instantly?

You clearly know more about this than myself Lurm, thoughts?

You are right. Any client side calculation is unsafe. Even when encoding the message, so that hacked deletion commands can be detected, there is still the possibility of just not sending any delete commands. But that's not the only issue with the System. By sending "delete requests" to the server for every single decayed Item you are also increasing the traffic --> possibly more lag.

Another Idea would be to just add the decay check directly into the sql statement when getting all items from a container. So when a player opens a container the client sends a request to the server for all the items in that container. The server then executes an sql statement simliar to the following:

SELECT whatever FROM Item WHERE Item.ContainerID = ID <-- Id of the opened container.

Those items will be sent to the Client and displayed. Now we can add another condition that decay date must be higher than current ingame date and don't care about deleting the items from the DB.

SELECT whatever FROM Item WHERE Item.ContainerID = ID AND Item.decay_date > current_date

Now the player can only see and intertact with non decayed items.
All decayed Items can then be removed during Maintenance

[Nicksen.owned]

Push

[Torneach]

Amazing.

So this is happening, right?

[SonofKitt]

Just suggestions. Not sure yet if any of it will be implemented in the short or long term. thanks for your reply.

[Khroma]

Still curious if this is gonna be implemented or not.

Kind of waiting for it to be, so i can come back enjoying the game x)

[sunleader]

I Disagree with a few things but Agree with most others.

Some things I would like to mention.


1.
Instead of a Road Network that Spans all places.
There should be several NPC Cities Scattered around and Connected by Streets.
Thus creating a loose base Network which then can be connected too.
1 City or Outpost for each Region is enough.

This would allow a Network to be created and also offer local Trade Hubs.
So Traders can buy Ressources there and Transport them somewhere else for profit.



2.
NPC Cities should have Shops which Buy and Sell different things.
And which Pays a Better price for Regional Stuff from other Regions.
Stuff they Sell would be Medium Quality and Midtier Stuff.
So new Players can earn Money and Buy stuff they dont have.

Of course Selling to NPC Shops should gain fairly little money except for Regionals.
And Buying should be fairly expensive.
So there is encouragement to Sell to Players. And buy from Players if possible.

This would create an Economy as well as Reasons for Transports to happen.
It would als8 create neutral spaces for New Players to life and play till recruited or becoming independent.


3.
I disagree with forced scarcity of ressources based on climate.
For a very few ressources this is fine.
But not on larger scale.
Otherwise it becomes a hassle rather than a reason for trade.

Trade shouod happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play.


4.
PvP as sole content never works.
In PvP each Victory also means a Defeat.
And the Defeated loses Fun on the Game fairly fast.

Thats why PvE Enemys like Natives are urgently required.
There needs to be more PvE Content especially content that respawns and is not finished or depleted after short time.

[Khroma]

3.
I disagree with forced scarcity of ressources based on climate.
For a very few ressources this is fine.
But not on larger scale.
Otherwise it becomes a hassle rather than a reason for trade.

Trade should happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play.

Thing is, if there is no necessity, you loose the PvP incentive from ressource scarcity which is imo the best incentive for PvP that any game could have.

That is why Sandbox pvp game doesnt really work and get stale, you end up being bored and declare war for bullshit reasons because war is not required for survival.

Life is feudal could be a great game and a good medieval simulation if war and trading would be a necessity for survival.

As OP mentionned giving trading and ressource such importance would give to player city a great value which in the end would tend to not get destroyed if taken by an enemy which isnt the case atm. So everything a guild had worked for will still have great value even if the guild lost it to the enemy.
This would reduce the ragetquit 'i lost everything' effect in player mind i think since they could take their city back if it had value.

[SonofKitt]

Sunleader,

1. Instead of a Road Network that Spans all places.
There should be several NPC Cities Scattered around and Connected by Streets.
Thus creating a loose base Network which then can be connected too.
1 City or Outpost for each Region is enough.

This would allow a Network to be created and also offer local Trade Hubs.
So Traders can buy Resources there and Transport them somewhere else for profit.

That is basically the same concept, the difference being one includes NPC cities/towns, whereas the other only has sandbox player cities/towns. Regardless, both would require a road network that included major, medium and minor roads that individuals claims can connect to. I doubt the developers will create such a road network for us, so hence the suggestion to make roads easier.

On the topic of NPC cities - maybe it could work but i'm not a big fan of non-sandbox features in a sandbox game. It would be a big development effort as well.

3. I disagree with forced scarcity of ressources based on climate.
For a very few ressources this is fine.
But not on larger scale.
Otherwise it becomes a hassle rather than a reason for trade.

Trade shouod happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play.

Scarcity of resources IS 90% of the suggestion.

Trade will not increase by any meaningful amount unless scarcity of resources is introduced. Currently, guilds can make produce most resources at high quality without transacting with others. Unless the game changes, players will continue to play the most efficient way, which doesn't involve trading with others on a regular basis. I explained why in the original post and would rather not have to go into more detail.

Trade shouod happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play

Also, creating scarcity of HIGH QUALITY resources will not effect people that are NOT concerned with the BEST resources. You will still be able to make iron tools anywhere in the world, grow crops anywhere, bred animals everywhere etc etc. it will just not be the best quality. If you do not want to trade, you wont have to.

4. PvP as sole content never works.
In PvP each Victory also means a Defeat.
And the Defeated loses Fun on the Game fairly fast.

I don't believe the suggestions are either PvE, RP or PvP, somewhere in the middle catering for all playstyles.
As Khroma reinforced, scarcity of resources will make towns more strategically valuable (10-100x more so than an outpost) and less likely to be deleted (well this depends on the enemy).

Thats why PvE Enemies like Natives are urgently required.

Potentially, i just hope the AI/lag experience is much better for Natives than the experience players have with the current AI for animals...

[Sunleader]

3.
I disagree with forced scarcity of ressources based on climate.
For a very few ressources this is fine.
But not on larger scale.
Otherwise it becomes a hassle rather than a reason for trade.

Trade should happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play.

Thing is, if there is no necessity, you loose the PvP incentive from ressource scarcity which is imo the best incentive for PvP that any game could have.

That is why Sandbox pvp game doesnt really work and get stale, you end up being bored and declare war for bullshit reasons because war is not required for survival.

Life is feudal could be a great game and a good medieval simulation if war and trading would be a necessity for survival.

As OP mentionned giving trading and ressource such importance would give to player city a great value which in the end would tend to not get destroyed if taken by an enemy which isnt the case atm. So everything a guild had worked for will still have great value even if the guild lost it to the enemy.
This would reduce the ragetquit 'i lost everything' effect in player mind i think since they could take their city back if it had value.

You will always have people Grief and RPK or declare Wars for no reason.
These people dont care about the Game or anything.
Their entire Target is Killing others.
So they dont care about having a city or anything that works.


PvP should be incentivized by Gain.
Not by preventing loss.

Problem is if such stuff ends up necessary.
Those who for whatever reason fail.
Are gone.

You need a Balance between requirements and freedom.
Thats why Trade should double or even triple efficiency.
And not trading should prevent you from some top grade stuff.
But it should not end up reqjired to play.


Otherwise you will lose a ton of players simply because they found no trade partners.

[Sunleader]

Sunleader,

1. Instead of a Road Network that Spans all places.
There should be several NPC Cities Scattered around and Connected by Streets.
Thus creating a loose base Network which then can be connected too.
1 City or Outpost for each Region is enough.

This would allow a Network to be created and also offer local Trade Hubs.
So Traders can buy Resources there and Transport them somewhere else for profit.

That is basically the same concept, the difference being one includes NPC cities/towns, whereas the other only has sandbox player cities/towns. Regardless, both would require a road network that included major, medium and minor roads that individuals claims can connect to. I doubt the developers will create such a road network for us, so hence the suggestion to make roads easier.

On the topic of NPC cities - maybe it could work but i'm not a big fan of non-sandbox features in a sandbox game. It would be a big development effort as well.

3. I disagree with forced scarcity of ressources based on climate.
For a very few ressources this is fine.
But not on larger scale.
Otherwise it becomes a hassle rather than a reason for trade.

Trade shouod happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play.

Scarcity of resources IS 90% of the suggestion.

Trade will not increase by any meaningful amount unless scarcity of resources is introduced. Currently, guilds can make produce most resources at high quality without transacting with others. Unless the game changes, players will continue to play the most efficient way, which doesn't involve trading with others on a regular basis. I explained why in the original post and would rather not have to go into more detail.

Trade shouod happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play

Also, creating scarcity of HIGH QUALITY resources will not effect people that are NOT concerned with the BEST resources. You will still be able to make iron tools anywhere in the world, grow crops anywhere, bred animals everywhere etc etc. it will just not be the best quality. If you do not want to trade, you wont have to.

4. PvP as sole content never works.
In PvP each Victory also means a Defeat.
And the Defeated loses Fun on the Game fairly fast.

I don't believe the suggestions are either PvE, RP or PvP, somewhere in the middle catering for all playstyles.
As Khroma reinforced, scarcity of resources will make towns more strategically valuable (10-100x more so than an outpost) and less likely to be deleted (well this depends on the enemy).

Thats why PvE Enemies like Natives are urgently required.

Potentially, i just hope the AI/lag experience is much better for Natives than the experience players have with the current AI for animals...

1.
I know.
But the Sandbox Variant has a Fatal Flaw.
Making Roads easier wont create a Network.
Just like now Guilds will only build their own Roads which cant be used by others due to leading their terrytory.

Pls note I say NPC Cities.
But thats a stretchable statement.
1 Trading Post and 2 Houses with a Watchtower and some Fences would actually more than Suffice.

I generally think we need more NPCs to give an Economy Foundation.
As otherwise its near impossible to establish a common value.
It takes decades of actual trading for Society to establish prices by themselves.
And in Games its not so different. Because unless the Game sets a price the price is your time and effort which means the opinions become exceedingly different.

But in this case the Outposts serve more to create natural and neutral hubs.
As any Guild created hubs would never be neutral.
If you want to get a network you need some preset coordination.
Otherwise each guild will just build a street for themselves with no connections.




2.
Thing is it does.
In your System getting anywhere without Trade would be near impossible because you would end with exceedingly low quality on some stuff thats a daily needed ressource.

Pls note I dont the idea itself is wrong.
I merely think that your taking it too far.

Your going from a
We can Produce 10% at medium 70% at good and 20% at great quality.
To a We can Produce 80% at crappy 5% medium 5% good and 10% exceptional quality.
And your making no exceptions to which warez are affected.


Better would be.
If you first Setup all the Base Ressources and provide them in all regions at 25-75 Quality. And have some Regions that Provide different of these at Q75-100
Then Setup Intermediate Ressources to have Q75-100 in a few Regions 25-75 in adjacent Regions to Q100 ones and 0-25 in the rest.
And Finally set Rare Ressources to have 50-100 in 1 or 2 Regions 0-50 in adjacent regions and not existant in the rest.


This Way.
Trade is not Nessecary for small Villages.
It is Importand but not Forced for Growing Villages.
And only Advanced Villages actually need to Trade.

However.
The Advanced Villages will have plenty to Sell and Pay others for Providing them.
Thus making Trade Profitable to them as the Advanced Guilds need some Ressources from there.
And Small Villages while not needing stuff surely needing Coin and being Interested in Advanced Goods.



Example.

Iron and Wood should be Available everywhere.
Thus Everyone can make Iron Tools.
But Steel needs Flux.
And Flux Herbs only Grow to High Quality in the Northern Forests
They can reach a Decent Quality in the Plains and Mountains near the Northern Forest. But not as much as there.
And in Southern Regions they only Grow very slow and low Quality.
So if you want Decent or even Hich Quality Steel you need to Trade for Flux xrom these Regions.

Gold for example is very Rare its only available in the Southern Mountains and at lower Quality in the Surrounding Hills.
Meanwhile Silver is only in Northern Mountains etc.



As you see.
Far less extreme system.
Yet creates a situation where trade will be encouraged and in higher levels be required.


Your System is based to create a forced scarcity that forces players to trade to get anywhere.

I would however suggest to have system that
Allows Players to get Starter Goods Faster and thus Progress Faster if they Trade.
Give Established Players Higher Quality and Higher Production if they Trade.
And then Force Players to Trade if they want to get to the top levels

[DiddlyDale]

3.
I disagree with forced scarcity of ressources based on climate.
For a very few ressources this is fine.
But not on larger scale.
Otherwise it becomes a hassle rather than a reason for trade.

Trade should happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play.

Thing is, if there is no necessity, you loose the PvP incentive from ressource scarcity which is imo the best incentive for PvP that any game could have.

That is why Sandbox pvp game doesnt really work and get stale, you end up being bored and declare war for bullshit reasons because war is not required for survival.

Life is feudal could be a great game and a good medieval simulation if war and trading would be a necessity for survival.

As OP mentionned giving trading and ressource such importance would give to player city a great value which in the end would tend to not get destroyed if taken by an enemy which isnt the case atm. So everything a guild had worked for will still have great value even if the guild lost it to the enemy.
This would reduce the ragetquit 'i lost everything' effect in player mind i think since they could take their city back if it had value.

You will always have people Grief and RPK or declare Wars for no reason.
These people dont care about the Game or anything.
Their entire Target is Killing others.
So they dont care about having a city or anything that works.


PvP should be incentivized by Gain.
Not by preventing loss.

Problem is if such stuff ends up necessary.
Those who for whatever reason fail.
Are gone.

You need a Balance between requirements and freedom.
Thats why Trade should double or even triple efficiency.
And not trading should prevent you from some top grade stuff.
But it should not end up reqjired to play.


Otherwise you will lose a ton of players simply because they found no trade partners.

Trading should be a base element to the game that is reinforced by consistent and solid resource loss, most games that are orientated around a real trading system will ensure that every single item is lost somehow and the more important that item is the easier it is to lose, this is why trading will never work in this game.

You can't lose anything you craft, which makes sense only in RPG's, for example once you get to level 90 build maint you can repair anything without any dura loss.

On top of that the game doesn't ask anything of the players regarding physical loss such as war or looting on a large scale, so PvP doesn't drive trade either and that is always the biggest driver of trade in every game I have played that has decent trading systems.

Sunleader,

1. Instead of a Road Network that Spans all places.
There should be several NPC Cities Scattered around and Connected by Streets.
Thus creating a loose base Network which then can be connected too.
1 City or Outpost for each Region is enough.

This would allow a Network to be created and also offer local Trade Hubs.
So Traders can buy Resources there and Transport them somewhere else for profit.

That is basically the same concept, the difference being one includes NPC cities/towns, whereas the other only has sandbox player cities/towns. Regardless, both would require a road network that included major, medium and minor roads that individuals claims can connect to. I doubt the developers will create such a road network for us, so hence the suggestion to make roads easier.

On the topic of NPC cities - maybe it could work but i'm not a big fan of non-sandbox features in a sandbox game. It would be a big development effort as well.

3. I disagree with forced scarcity of ressources based on climate.
For a very few ressources this is fine.
But not on larger scale.
Otherwise it becomes a hassle rather than a reason for trade.

Trade shouod happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play.

Scarcity of resources IS 90% of the suggestion.

Trade will not increase by any meaningful amount unless scarcity of resources is introduced. Currently, guilds can make produce most resources at high quality without transacting with others. Unless the game changes, players will continue to play the most efficient way, which doesn't involve trading with others on a regular basis. I explained why in the original post and would rather not have to go into more detail.

Trade shouod happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play

Also, creating scarcity of HIGH QUALITY resources will not effect people that are NOT concerned with the BEST resources. You will still be able to make iron tools anywhere in the world, grow crops anywhere, bred animals everywhere etc etc. it will just not be the best quality. If you do not want to trade, you wont have to.

4. PvP as sole content never works.
In PvP each Victory also means a Defeat.
And the Defeated loses Fun on the Game fairly fast.

I don't believe the suggestions are either PvE, RP or PvP, somewhere in the middle catering for all playstyles.
As Khroma reinforced, scarcity of resources will make towns more strategically valuable (10-100x more so than an outpost) and less likely to be deleted (well this depends on the enemy).

Thats why PvE Enemies like Natives are urgently required.

Potentially, i just hope the AI/lag experience is much better for Natives than the experience players have with the current AI for animals...

1.
I know.
But the Sandbox Variant has a Fatal Flaw.
Making Roads easier wont create a Network.
Just like now Guilds will only build their own Roads which cant be used by others due to leading their terrytory.

Pls note I say NPC Cities.
But thats a stretchable statement.
1 Trading Post and 2 Houses with a Watchtower and some Fences would actually more than Suffice.

I generally think we need more NPCs to give an Economy Foundation.
As otherwise its near impossible to establish a common value.
It takes decades of actual trading for Society to establish prices by themselves.
And in Games its not so different. Because unless the Game sets a price the price is your time and effort which means the opinions become exceedingly different.

But in this case the Outposts serve more to create natural and neutral hubs.
As any Guild created hubs would never be neutral.
If you want to get a network you need some preset coordination.
Otherwise each guild will just build a street for themselves with no connections.




2.
Thing is it does.
In your System getting anywhere without Trade would be near impossible because you would end with exceedingly low quality on some stuff thats a daily needed ressource.

Pls note I dont the idea itself is wrong.
I merely think that your taking it too far.

Your going from a
We can Produce 10% at medium 70% at good and 20% at great quality.
To a We can Produce 80% at crappy 5% medium 5% good and 10% exceptional quality.
And your making no exceptions to which warez are affected.


Better would be.
If you first Setup all the Base Ressources and provide them in all regions at 25-75 Quality. And have some Regions that Provide different of these at Q75-100
Then Setup Intermediate Ressources to have Q75-100 in a few Regions 25-75 in adjacent Regions to Q100 ones and 0-25 in the rest.
And Finally set Rare Ressources to have 50-100 in 1 or 2 Regions 0-50 in adjacent regions and not existant in the rest.


This Way.
Trade is not Nessecary for small Villages.
It is Importand but not Forced for Growing Villages.
And only Advanced Villages actually need to Trade.

However.
The Advanced Villages will have plenty to Sell and Pay others for Providing them.
Thus making Trade Profitable to them as the Advanced Guilds need some Ressources from there.
And Small Villages while not needing stuff surely needing Coin and being Interested in Advanced Goods.



Example.

Iron and Wood should be Available everywhere.
Thus Everyone can make Iron Tools.
But Steel needs Flux.
And Flux Herbs only Grow to High Quality in the Northern Forests
They can reach a Decent Quality in the Plains and Mountains near the Northern Forest. But not as much as there.
And in Southern Regions they only Grow very slow and low Quality.
So if you want Decent or even Hich Quality Steel you need to Trade for Flux xrom these Regions.

Gold for example is very Rare its only available in the Southern Mountains and at lower Quality in the Surrounding Hills.
Meanwhile Silver is only in Northern Mountains etc.



As you see.
Far less extreme system.
Yet creates a situation where trade will be encouraged and in higher levels be required.


Your System is based to create a forced scarcity that forces players to trade to get anywhere.

I would however suggest to have system that
Allows Players to get Starter Goods Faster and thus Progress Faster if they Trade.
Give Established Players Higher Quality and Higher Production if they Trade.
And then Force Players to Trade if they want to get to the top levels

The problem with the majority of what you are talking about is you are basing you assumptions on materials, people didn't really trade in materials enmasse like you are thinking back in the day when horse and cart was about, the only reason you see it so much now is because we can haul millions of tons an hour.

Most people traded in items of value, and maybe they traded materials but it would have been small and high value like gold or silver.

The way to get trade going in that sense is to encourage trading of fully crafted items, you don't trade 5000 wool pieces, you trade 50 wool jerkins.

The way to get that system more than just a "random generic wool jerkin for 10 gold" is by making each area unique in what it names those items and what advantages/disadvantages it gives, for example if you've been living in the cold north most of your life you aren't going to have desert gear, so if you decide to go and live there you need some of that fancy silk stuff.

It's just a bad example but it would make far more sense if the different areas provided the same items but for their environments, they have big enough differences that trade becomes viable not only on a local basis but also for the wider area, you can no longer just craft everything.

This also comes down to crafting itself because you could have a northern blacksmith and a southern blacksmith, further diversifying the way crafting works on a local area also.

You can make it so that a horse born in the south has a 20% increase in speed on sand and -20% on grass, this means that a big army coming from the north needs all new horses for their cav.

There are defo ways of giving trade something worthwhile, but not without war.

[Sunleader]

Oh so you can actually focus on a topic without throsing personal attacks every second sentence.


1.
A Feature not Enjoyable is no Featufe at all.
Forcing People to do something leaves a very frustrating taste to them.
Causing many to just Quit.
Even more so when its enforced by Loss or Stagnation.
Cause People then dont feel like trying again and Leave the Game.


And I wonder what Games you Played.
Cause Number 1 Driver of Econoly is PvE in the vast majority of MMOROGs.



2.
No I dont and no It doesnt.
See thats why I want only Scarcity for Intermediate Materials.
Flux is just one Key Component for example.
Transporting Steel instead of Flux makes no Sense.
Because Everyone has Iron and Flux is much lighter.

Same for Rares.
Sure some Jewelry made of one Material can be made and exported directly.
But if you want to make stuff that requires both.
At least one Good has to be Transported.


In his System however everything is scarce so your Forced to Transport tremendous amounts.
Guilds will rather build an Outpost in each area than bother Trading in such insane amounts.


3.
As for Modern Trade Capacity and Value.
Thats why I think NPC Shops are Required.
NPC Shops will in most Games cost more and pay less.
So Trade with Players is always more effective.
But they serve two importand tasks.

A.
They Provide a Price Range.
B.
They balance out Deficiencys.
(They Sell Stuff that too Few Players Supply and Buy up Stuff thats Produced in too large Quantities. Thus preventing the Market from Crashing like it has in this Game where Wares are either so Expensive that most Players cant afford them. Or so Cheap that they aint worth even offering)


4.
The Last bit is actually really Good.
I think it should get a Full Suggestion for itself.

My Idea was Similar.

Pigs might be much Fatter in the Central Area and Provide much more Meat.
Hence Faster and Cheaper Production.
Meanwhile in the North they are much Tougher. And Provide more Leather.


By making the Production of certain things Faster and Cheaper in some Areas.
Guilds might get more Profit by Producing more of their own Stuff and then Sell it.
While Buying the Stuff thats slower in their Area from another Guild.

If 1 Pig in Area A Produces 200 Meat and 1 Hide.
While 1 Pig in Area B Produces 4 Hides and 50 Meat.
Both Guilys can increase their Efficiency tremendously by Trading.




But your Idea adds another lvl to that.
Indeed Metal in South could be Softer. Thus being more Durable thus Öerfect for Tools.
Meanwhile Metal from South could be Harder. Increasing Damage of Weapons.
Add
Dark Forest might have very Good Wood for Bows. While Eastern Islands might have Great Hardwood for Spears etc.



Such Local Bonus Effects would be a pretty nice Addition.
They increase variety of Items and Encorage Trade quite a bit.

[DiddlyDale]

Oh so you can actually focus on a topic without throsing personal attacks every second sentence.


1.
A Feature not Enjoyable is no Featufe at all.
Forcing People to do something leaves a very frustrating taste to them.
Causing many to just Quit.
Even more so when its enforced by Loss or Stagnation.
Cause People then dont feel like trying again and Leave the Game.


And I wonder what Games you Played.
Cause Number 1 Driver of Econoly is PvE in the vast majority of MMOROGs.



2.
No I dont and no It doesnt.
See thats why I want only Scarcity for Intermediate Materials.
Flux is just one Key Component for example.
Transporting Steel instead of Flux makes no Sense.
Because Everyone has Iron and Flux is much lighter.

Same for Rares.
Sure some Jewelry made of one Material can be made and exported directly.
But if you want to make stuff that requires both.
At least one Good has to be Transported.


In his System however everything is scarce so your Forced to Transport tremendous amounts.
Guilds will rather build an Outpost in each area than bother Trading in such insane amounts.


3.
As for Modern Trade Capacity and Value.
Thats why I think NPC Shops are Required.
NPC Shops will in most Games cost more and pay less.
So Trade with Players is always more effective.
But they serve two importand tasks.

A.
They Provide a Price Range.
B.
They balance out Deficiencys.
(They Sell Stuff that too Few Players Supply and Buy up Stuff thats Produced in too large Quantities. Thus preventing the Market from Crashing like it has in this Game where Wares are either so Expensive that most Players cant afford them. Or so Cheap that they aint worth even offering)


4.
The Last bit is actually really Good.
I think it should get a Full Suggestion for itself.

My Idea was Similar.

Pigs might be much Fatter in the Central Area and Provide much more Meat.
Hence Faster and Cheaper Production.
Meanwhile in the North they are much Tougher. And Provide more Leather.


By making the Production of certain things Faster and Cheaper in some Areas.
Guilds might get more Profit by Producing more of their own Stuff and then Sell it.
While Buying the Stuff thats slower in their Area from another Guild.

If 1 Pig in Area A Produces 200 Meat and 1 Hide.
While 1 Pig in Area B Produces 4 Hides and 50 Meat.
Both Guilys can increase their Efficiency tremendously by Trading.




But your Idea adds another lvl to that.
Indeed Metal in South could be Softer. Thus being more Durable thus Öerfect for Tools.
Meanwhile Metal from South could be Harder. Increasing Damage of Weapons.
Add
Dark Forest might have very Good Wood for Bows. While Eastern Islands might have Great Hardwood for Spears etc.



Such Local Bonus Effects would be a pretty nice Addition.
They increase variety of Items and Encorage Trade quite a bit.

I can do it really easily when you don't quote untruthfully yes, just a hint but if you are going to state something as a truth like "all steam reviews that are negative say this" don't say it about something thats easy to count with a word tracker

1/. No the number one driver of economy in most heavy sandbox mmo's is use/loss of an item, in Eve Online for example people lose ships, they use their resources.

You don't have that in LiF, people can repair a 200 dura item back to 200 dura, if another player kills them they also can do the same, the only way you lose items in this game is if someone throws it on the ground which never happens late game unless the item is useless.

Yes crafting does drive the system but once there is enough of said item floating around in the game then automatically nobody needs it anymore.

Eve Online also did do something right, they have three races and each race flies a different ship type, so there is also demand on certain ships, each race also has preferential weapon types, so again a demand for certain tools.

2/. Flux would be the same as what I said then? I said rare mats like gold or silver, low quants and high vals, also in that bit I was answering multiple posts so my bad.

In this particular case you wouldn't transport the flux if the guy at the other end required steel, you would ask him/her what they need and produce that yourself if possible, if you couldn't then in most cases I doubt you would be trading unless the other guy buying was under pressure (i.e. war) because they are probably more advanced than you anyway.

If it was me I would make the rare resources that occasionally drop, drop all the time, so you don't get steel you get northern steel for e.g.

3/. We have that in a way already, you sell to the crown at trade outposts, the problem is that it doesn't really do much for the player economy because busy bodies just make plenty of cash and then that's it for them.

They then no longer require anything from anyone, so his suggestion makes more sense than yours his just needs refinement, you don't make resources scarce by nature, you make them scarce by location.

You are also right about not making them scarce by just making people have less, the best way to do it is by making a southerner produce southern goods and a northerner producing northern goods (as a very crude example) and then making them expend those resources in war.

Very similar to how my Eve example of ship types and their general weapon requirements, now a blacksmith could learn both northern and southern types of smithing but like in Eve you want to make it a long time before they can do it, and an even longer time before the respective infantry can use said weapon types.

Then give advantages and disadvantages to each type of system based on location.

After about 2 weeks you will have southern players trying to fight in northern areas and they will need to buy off the local tradesmen, they will also need northern repair kits which when repairing their gear doesn't give full durability back, it slowly makes the weapon more and more useless until one day one hit = weapon broken at which point you replace it (you need to buy another one).

Rinse and repeat.

4/. I think the biggest thing here is just making sure that the different areas have a variety of equipments to use, and you could reinforce the use of certain types of mats dependent on location.

One thing that always annoyed me was for example the class system in PvP, archers wear leather, spearmen wear padded, footmen wear scale, zerkers wear plate and horsemen wear chain.

It's just stupid, so a better system would be by separating the armour types into their own classes, the weapons into their own classes etc.

Then you have combat types into their locations.

That way you reinforce armies to be dependent on location specific traits, that makes them good at fighting in their own climate and bad at fighting in another climate.

There is a reason why European armies tend to wear much heavier and thicker equipment, middle eastern armies tend to be lighter and thinner and Asian tend to wear even lighter and thinner.

It's all to do with comfort in their locale and their training and the resources they have available, you can see the same in Spanish armies at the time who were if Christian decent often wore similar armour types to their Islamic counter parts.

You can also see the same in the buildings that were made, with colder countries going for more warmer building types with straw roofs and wattle and daub walls, where as hotter countries went for cooler types with stone walls and roofs, you could even have a nomadic type for players who want to live by themselves for each area.

There's a lot you could do by making groups localised for all aspects of the game, PvP would be enriched, the looks of the game would be enriched, the crafting would become way more in depth.

[Khroma]

3.
I disagree with forced scarcity of ressources based on climate.
For a very few ressources this is fine.
But not on larger scale.
Otherwise it becomes a hassle rather than a reason for trade.

Trade should happen for increased efficiency and profit.
Not as necessety to play.

Thing is, if there is no necessity, you loose the PvP incentive from ressource scarcity which is imo the best incentive for PvP that any game could have.

That is why Sandbox pvp game doesnt really work and get stale, you end up being bored and declare war for bullshit reasons because war is not required for survival.

Life is feudal could be a great game and a good medieval simulation if war and trading would be a necessity for survival.

As OP mentionned giving trading and ressource such importance would give to player city a great value which in the end would tend to not get destroyed if taken by an enemy which isnt the case atm. So everything a guild had worked for will still have great value even if the guild lost it to the enemy.
This would reduce the ragetquit 'i lost everything' effect in player mind i think since they could take their city back if it had value.

You will always have people Grief and RPK or declare Wars for no reason.
These people dont care about the Game or anything.
Their entire Target is Killing others.
So they dont care about having a city or anything that works.


PvP should be incentivized by Gain.
Not by preventing loss.

Problem is if such stuff ends up necessary.
Those who for whatever reason fail.
Are gone.

You need a Balance between requirements and freedom.
Thats why Trade should double or even triple efficiency.
And not trading should prevent you from some top grade stuff.
But it should not end up reqjired to play.


Otherwise you will lose a ton of players simply because they found no trade partners.

I totally agree with you on the fact, that there will always be player that declare war for nothing, and will destroy city or anything to the ground.
I dont mind that, they will have their reputation for doing so, but atm there is no incentive to do war to gain ressources and keep city alive to do so aswell. So you end up with only griefing war mostly since everything that get conquered will mostly get destroyed due to no utility atm.

And second, the op didnt say anything about having to trade to make any item, you can make any item, it just wont be of the best quality.

The intend of this post was never to limit player choice depending on their playstyle, it was to give player more choice to create content. And actually give interesting choice to declare war for in top of adding actual strategy and politic to warfare, which is currently lacking.

I didnt read the last comments from yours, but it looked toxic to me.
Hope this post wont go into toxic area no more, while you may not agree with the OP for obscure reason i still yet understand, i really think a true trading economy is what this game truly need to be interesting to play.

PS : True trading route actually give bandits an incentive for choosing this playstyle, right now it is better to declare war than going bandits. Which you wont be able to do if you plan to attack any caravan, even if they are of your enemy he could still buy mercenary with no guild to defend it making you loose alignment.
The alignment system is the best i have seen in a game so far, but there is no gain by playing bandits since you can do the same with just declaring war without the hussle of negative alignement death.

[Sunleader]

Oh so you can actually focus on a topic without throsing personal attacks every second sentence.


1.
A Feature not Enjoyable is no Featufe at all.
Forcing People to do something leaves a very frustrating taste to them.
Causing many to just Quit.
Even more so when its enforced by Loss or Stagnation.
Cause People then dont feel like trying again and Leave the Game.


And I wonder what Games you Played.
Cause Number 1 Driver of Econoly is PvE in the vast majority of MMOROGs.



2.
No I dont and no It doesnt.
See thats why I want only Scarcity for Intermediate Materials.
Flux is just one Key Component for example.
Transporting Steel instead of Flux makes no Sense.
Because Everyone has Iron and Flux is much lighter.

Same for Rares.
Sure some Jewelry made of one Material can be made and exported directly.
But if you want to make stuff that requires both.
At least one Good has to be Transported.


In his System however everything is scarce so your Forced to Transport tremendous amounts.
Guilds will rather build an Outpost in each area than bother Trading in such insane amounts.


3.
As for Modern Trade Capacity and Value.
Thats why I think NPC Shops are Required.
NPC Shops will in most Games cost more and pay less.
So Trade with Players is always more effective.
But they serve two importand tasks.

A.
They Provide a Price Range.
B.
They balance out Deficiencys.
(They Sell Stuff that too Few Players Supply and Buy up Stuff thats Produced in too large Quantities. Thus preventing the Market from Crashing like it has in this Game where Wares are either so Expensive that most Players cant afford them. Or so Cheap that they aint worth even offering)


4.
The Last bit is actually really Good.
I think it should get a Full Suggestion for itself.

My Idea was Similar.

Pigs might be much Fatter in the Central Area and Provide much more Meat.
Hence Faster and Cheaper Production.
Meanwhile in the North they are much Tougher. And Provide more Leather.


By making the Production of certain things Faster and Cheaper in some Areas.
Guilds might get more Profit by Producing more of their own Stuff and then Sell it.
While Buying the Stuff thats slower in their Area from another Guild.

If 1 Pig in Area A Produces 200 Meat and 1 Hide.
While 1 Pig in Area B Produces 4 Hides and 50 Meat.
Both Guilys can increase their Efficiency tremendously by Trading.




But your Idea adds another lvl to that.
Indeed Metal in South could be Softer. Thus being more Durable thus Öerfect for Tools.
Meanwhile Metal from South could be Harder. Increasing Damage of Weapons.
Add
Dark Forest might have very Good Wood for Bows. While Eastern Islands might have Great Hardwood for Spears etc.



Such Local Bonus Effects would be a pretty nice Addition.
They increase variety of Items and Encorage Trade quite a bit.

I can do it really easily when you don't quote untruthfully yes, just a hint but if you are going to state something as a truth like "all steam reviews that are negative say this" don't say it about something thats easy to count with a word tracker

1/. No the number one driver of economy in most heavy sandbox mmo's is use/loss of an item, in Eve Online for example people lose ships, they use their resources.

You don't have that in LiF, people can repair a 200 dura item back to 200 dura, if another player kills them they also can do the same, the only way you lose items in this game is if someone throws it on the ground which never happens late game unless the item is useless.

Yes crafting does drive the system but once there is enough of said item floating around in the game then automatically nobody needs it anymore.

Eve Online also did do something right, they have three races and each race flies a different ship type, so there is also demand on certain ships, each race also has preferential weapon types, so again a demand for certain tools.

2/. Flux would be the same as what I said then? I said rare mats like gold or silver, low quants and high vals, also in that bit I was answering multiple posts so my bad.

In this particular case you wouldn't transport the flux if the guy at the other end required steel, you would ask him/her what they need and produce that yourself if possible, if you couldn't then in most cases I doubt you would be trading unless the other guy buying was under pressure (i.e. war) because they are probably more advanced than you anyway.

If it was me I would make the rare resources that occasionally drop, drop all the time, so you don't get steel you get northern steel for e.g.

3/. We have that in a way already, you sell to the crown at trade outposts, the problem is that it doesn't really do much for the player economy because busy bodies just make plenty of cash and then that's it for them.

They then no longer require anything from anyone, so his suggestion makes more sense than yours his just needs refinement, you don't make resources scarce by nature, you make them scarce by location.

You are also right about not making them scarce by just making people have less, the best way to do it is by making a southerner produce southern goods and a northerner producing northern goods (as a very crude example) and then making them expend those resources in war.

Very similar to how my Eve example of ship types and their general weapon requirements, now a blacksmith could learn both northern and southern types of smithing but like in Eve you want to make it a long time before they can do it, and an even longer time before the respective infantry can use said weapon types.

Then give advantages and disadvantages to each type of system based on location.

After about 2 weeks you will have southern players trying to fight in northern areas and they will need to buy off the local tradesmen, they will also need northern repair kits which when repairing their gear doesn't give full durability back, it slowly makes the weapon more and more useless until one day one hit = weapon broken at which point you replace it (you need to buy another one).

Rinse and repeat.

4/. I think the biggest thing here is just making sure that the different areas have a variety of equipments to use, and you could reinforce the use of certain types of mats dependent on location.

One thing that always annoyed me was for example the class system in PvP, archers wear leather, spearmen wear padded, footmen wear scale, zerkers wear plate and horsemen wear chain.

It's just stupid, so a better system would be by separating the armour types into their own classes, the weapons into their own classes etc.

Then you have combat types into their locations.

That way you reinforce armies to be dependent on location specific traits, that makes them good at fighting in their own climate and bad at fighting in another climate.

There is a reason why European armies tend to wear much heavier and thicker equipment, middle eastern armies tend to be lighter and thinner and Asian tend to wear even lighter and thinner.

It's all to do with comfort in their locale and their training and the resources they have available, you can see the same in Spanish armies at the time who were if Christian decent often wore similar armour types to their Islamic counter parts.

You can also see the same in the buildings that were made, with colder countries going for more warmer building types with straw roofs and wattle and daub walls, where as hotter countries went for cooler types with stone walls and roofs, you could even have a nomadic type for players who want to live by themselves for each area.

There's a lot you could do by making groups localised for all aspects of the game, PvP would be enriched, the looks of the game would be enriched, the crafting would become way more in depth.

1.
Quote Pls.
Cause I dont think I ever said that all Steam Reviews are Negative.
What I said was that there is alot of Negative Reviews that complain about lack of Content and about People being able to just Exploit their way over Walls by using Barkbox or other Methods.
While I see not that many Reviews complaining about lack of PvP or Siege.

And thats a Fact.

When I open the Game in the Shop I got 6 Negative and 4 Positive Reviews.
Automatic Filters are for Language (German) and Helpfulness
Out of the 6 Negative Ones
2 are about Exploits and Cheating one of which especially mentions people Glitching into their Walls.
3 are about lack of Content and Grinding.
Only 1 is about lack of Siege Mechanics and about lack of PvP due to too few Players.

If I move to more Reviews the first 20 are still just that 1 guy complaining about lack of PvP.
While I get some new ones along complaining about Technical issues.
One guy with 0.3 Hours complaining that the Game is P2W due to buying a Character.
and the rest complains about lack of PvE Content and Grinding.


2.
Thing is.
Loss of Items is not a PvP only thing.
And here is the Catch.
In EVE Online you Fly Spaceships. The stuff is Destroyed when Killed.
Not Dropped.
Thats why EVE is one of the few Exceptions here.
But the vast Majority of Sandbox MMOs Plays on the Ground and your Stuff is Simply Dropped to the Floor.
Its usually not lost in these Games.
And especially in PvP Oriented Games Equipment is usually kept very Cheap to make sure that People can actually Fight each other several times without going Bankrupt immediately.


3.
I actually Agree that the Game needs more in terms of Item Decay.
But the Devs already Stated that they are Away of the Issue and are working towards creating more Sinks for this.
Indeed I think that Repair should always cost Durability.
There should be no way to Repair without Dura Loss.


4.
EVE is doing alot of things Right lol
Never Contested that.
Its just that alot of People are Selling very wrong Ideas about EVE.
Claiming it would be a complete PvP Game where People just Fly around Killing each other and waging Wars all day.
And thats not True at all.
in EVE there is quite the Risk Involved in Attacking others because your most Valuable things will usually be your Ships and Equipment.

Thing is alot of the stuff in EVE works because EVE is a Space Game.
You cant give Players an Armor thats 100 times Bigger then the Starter Armor and thus worth 1000 times more allowing you to fight 100 other Players of a lower Armor Class
(Just exemplary Numbers for explanation not an actual example)


5.
Thats why I say we need NPC Outposts and Shops.
NPC Shops provide a Base Trading Hub for People.
They Guarantee that Items have a Certain Money Value.
Thus creating a Situation where you can actually Trade for Money all the time.
Hence if someone wants Flux I can Sell him Flux and he gives me Money.
He knows he will get Money Guaranteed for stuff he Produces.
And I know I can exchange Money Guaranteed for something else.

Money is given worth by the ability of Money to Buy something.
This is not the case in this Game.
Albeit it did improve a little on last Patch.

Because in this Game Money is more of an Ressource required for a few things. But which you cant really do much else with.
There is no Guarantee that Selling stuff for Money will allow you to buy anything useful.

So most People dont Trade in Money.


6.
As I said.
I love the Idea of Regional Items like this.
I would Gladly Support a Suggestion to give Items Regional Buffs by Default rather than as Occassional Drop.
Meaning that Northern Steel be Strong and Southern Steel Durable etc.
Whatever Ideas are there for Regional and Climate Effects on stuff.


7.
Exactly.
We got the Crown for this.
But the Crown ONLY BUYS.
It gives you a way to Make Money.
But there is no Value to Money if there is no Guarantee you can Buy anything with it.

Hyperinflation happens when having alot of Money does no longer Guarantee you the ability to buy something.

And we currently have that.
Money has no Inherent Value because there is no Guaranteed Wares you can buy for Money.

NPC Shops would Solve that Instantly.
Because even if they are Expensive. They would Guarantee that you can always Exchange your Money for some useful Ressources or Items


8.
As I said.
EVE System will never Work here.
EVE System is basicly like you Played World of Warcraft and allowed PvP Zones to mix between lvl 10 and lvl 80 Players.
The Big Guys got 100 times more Expensive Equipment but are also 100 times Stronger.

This will never Fly in Games like Life is Feudal.
Because nobody will Accept this kind of Power Difference between 2 Players in a PvP Fight.

But if there isnt such a Strong Difference in Power. Then nobody has a Reason to use the more Expensive Equipment and risk Expending it.


9.
Agreed.
The Armors should have Independent Bonusses and Maluses.
Any Class should be allowed to use Chain Armor.
But Chain Armor is heavier than leather thus draining your Stamina more etc.
It makes no Sense to have a Weapon Bonus on an Armor just to Limit the Armor to that Class.


10.
I dont mind a Climate System for Clothes and Buildings.
But I doubt this can be Realized anytime soon.
So I.ll leave that aside.

[SonofKitt]

So yeah, maybe we can agree to disagree about scarcity Sunleader.

I do agree with you that "Area/Region" differences could help, as you say;
- If 1 Pig in Area A Produces 200 Meat and 1 Hide.
- While 1 Pig in Area B Produces 4 Hides and 50 Meat.
- Metal in South could be Softer. Etc Etc

However, when writing this post/suggestion, i tried to focus it on simple non-complex changes (I know the post might be alot of words, but its pretty simple at the core). Value tweaks and slight alterations/additions of code.

I think it would be awesome to have region buildings/items/animals/armors/weapons/fighting styles but all those require models/actions/sounds/etc. I wanted a quickfix for the economy or to provide some inspiration on how it could be achieved.

They already have code which caps the quality of tools/weapons depending on whether iron/steel/VS is used. Implementing scarcity would be simple a matter of capping "gathering actions" but the climate/server you are in. Region action speed bonuses and yields would again be a little extra coding and value changing. Making roads easier to build would only require values changes. The trader post requires a lot of work.

I cant really say more than I did in my original post. No amount of words would change my opinion, and I don't expect any amount of words will change your views.

As Khroma said, I would rather this post does not become toxic.

[Sunleader]

So yeah, maybe we can agree to disagree about scarcity Sunleader.

I do agree with you that "Area/Region" differences could help, as you say;
- If 1 Pig in Area A Produces 200 Meat and 1 Hide.
- While 1 Pig in Area B Produces 4 Hides and 50 Meat.
- Metal in South could be Softer. Etc Etc

However, when writing this post/suggestion, i tried to focus it on simple non-complex changes (I know the post might be alot of words, but its pretty simple at the core). Value tweaks and slight alterations/additions of code.

I think it would be awesome to have region buildings/items/animals/armors/weapons/fighting styles but all those require models/actions/sounds/etc. I wanted a quickfix for the economy or to provide some inspiration on how it could be achieved.

They already have code which caps the quality of tools/weapons depending on whether iron/steel/VS is used. Implementing scarcity would be simple a matter of capping "gathering actions" but the climate/server you are in. Region action speed bonuses and yields would again be a little extra coding and value changing. Making roads easier to build would only require values changes. The trader post requires a lot of work.

I cant really say more than I did in my original post. No amount of words would change my opinion, and I don't expect any amount of words will change your views.

As Khroma said, I would rather this post does not become toxic.

Thats too Bad then.
I would like to Support the Suggestion on tve basic Idea.
But I cannot possibly agree to the Harsh scarcity your suggesting here.

As I said.
Your current Suggestion would Result in massive Quantities of Wares being Required for Transport.
And even with a Street System Nobody would ever Trade at such Scales.
Especially for smaller Groups this would lock them out of the Game.
And the Larger Groups would likely not Trade but instead just Build an Outpost and get the Stuff themselves because Trading for the amounts they need on a regular Base would just not be sustainable.

In best case you would get some Guilds to form a Partnership and share Ressources.
But Trade woukd never really happen this way.


I mean If I need 3 Carts of that Material each Week.
Why would I bother Trading for it.
I will just Build a Claim there and then Transport the Mats myself.


But well.
If there is no chance for compromise thats just how it is.

Then I oppose this Suggestion as it would cause more damage than it would fix.

[SonofKitt]

Cool. That's your opinion and your entitled to think/predict that possible outcome. Thanks for your final comment.

[Khroma]

As I said.
Your current Suggestion would Result in massive Quantities of Wares being Required for Transport.
And even with a Street System Nobody would ever Trade at such Scales.
Especially for smaller Groups this would lock them out of the Game.
And the Larger Groups would likely not Trade but instead just Build an Outpost and get the Stuff themselves because Trading for the amounts they need on a regular Base would just not be sustainable.

I see almost the total opposite if the OP changes are applied. Which you would totally agree with.

I guess it is a bit sad you dont see it too x)

Maybe your vision is too embedded within the actual game mechanics of LiF to understand all the application and implication it entails.

I dont know if you played other sandbox game, but true localized and sustainable economy is the core of a sandbox game to be successfull for any type and group of player. This include scarcity ( frightening word it appears, it is basicly area with specific ressource spot like you have in most mmo even non sandbox ones ), and massive item sink mechanics.
You cannot do more simple and true to the core of the game than the OP is suggesting developpement wise. Obviously it will need to be adjusted, but we need a base system to be tested by players and so the dev can work on.
No economy = dead game ( atleast for the mmo part )

[Sunleader]

As I said.
Your current Suggestion would Result in massive Quantities of Wares being Required for Transport.
And even with a Street System Nobody would ever Trade at such Scales.
Especially for smaller Groups this would lock them out of the Game.
And the Larger Groups would likely not Trade but instead just Build an Outpost and get the Stuff themselves because Trading for the amounts they need on a regular Base would just not be sustainable.

I see almost the total opposite if the OP changes are applied. Which you would totally agree with.

I guess it is a bit sad you dont see it too x)

Maybe your vision is too embedded within the actual game mechanics of LiF to understand all the application and implication it entails.

I dont know if you played other sandbox game, but true localized and sustainable economy is the core of a sandbox game to be successfull for any type and group of player. This include scarcity ( frightening word it appears, it is basicly area with specific ressource spot like you have in most mmo even non sandbox ones ), and massive item sink mechanics.
You cannot do more simple and true to the core of the game than the OP is suggesting developpement wise. Obviously it will need to be adjusted, but we need a base system to be tested by players and so the dev can work on.
No economy = dead game ( atleast for the mmo part )

As I said.
I agree with the General Idea.
The Basic Idea to create a Scarcity to encourage Trade is absolutely Fine.

The Problem is the Measure.

Medicine becomes Poison when you take too much of it.
And the Medicine the OP Suggests here is a Massive Overdose unfortunately.

Trade Happens when Buying something is Easier then Producing it yourself.
But for this to happen you need to have enough Ressources that you can Establish your Game and on top have a Surplus to Sell.
If you got all Ressources there wont be Trade because you dont need to Trade.
If however you got only few Ressources there wont be Trade because you dont have the Means to Trade.

The OPs System would cause such a Massive Scarcity that small Groups will have an Incredible Hard Time to even establish themselves in a Position where they have anything worth Selling and thus the Money to actually Buy anything.
And for Large Groups getting the Quantities of Ressources they Need in Trade would be much more Work then to just Send 2 Guys to Build a Claim in the other Area and then Gather the Ressources there themselves. Thus not requiring to Trade.

[SonofKitt]

The values for the below colours green, blue, orange and red are "examples" so that people can understand the concept. I.e. capped Red to 10 quality is just and example. The developer's would be the only ones to make those kind of decisions.





Again, its all conceptual. The numbers themselves are just plucked out of thin air. balance would 100% be required. I said that multiple times in the Post.

Plus, lets not forget that player skill and multiple item transformations comes into account. A high skill blacksmith can improve the quality of raw Iron ore when;
a) Smelting the Ore into Ingots/Bars/Lumps
b) Smelting the Ore into Steel or Vos Steel
c) Forging tools/weapons/Armor Parts
d) Armorsmithing

And, the blacksmiths robe and shop also bump up the quality.

Q10 Iron ore can actually make 50+ final products.
Q25-40 Iron Ore can get close to 80Q final products.

Its the same with many resources. Something the developers would also need to take into account for each individual item. I.e. the maximum Transformation Skill possible for each item/resource.

Most people only use 60Q tools (spades/saws/pickaxes), reserving the high quality tools for special items already.

It would be really cool if your guild wanted to make some top tier blacksmith hammers and they needed to get a few 100q Branches from the North and a few High Quality Ingots from the Tundra/Steepe.

Again, everything is conceptual. I had to put rough values in otherwise it wouldn't make much sense at all.

And to your question/concersns about bulk resources. Players will find the equilibrium. Players wont sell stone, they will sell shaped stone. They wont buy Iron Ore, they will buy Ingots. They wont buy flax stems, they will buy Hanks of Linen.

Players could sell stone/Iron Ore/Flax Stems if they could find a buyer, that would be their choice.

These kind of people will likely be new players, who have plenty of TIME, but not many ingame SKILLS.

They could search a forest for 100Q trees, cut them down and sell for a profit to buy other resources.


Again, it is totally fine that we agree to disagree about possible implications and outcomes. This will be my last attempt to explain the concept to you. Thanks again for your feedback.

[Sunleader]

The values for the below colours green, blue, orange and red are "examples" so that people can understand the concept. I.e. capped Red to 10 quality is just and example. The developer's would be the only ones to make those kind of decisions.





Again, its all conceptual. The numbers themselves are just plucked out of thin air. balance would 100% be required. I said that multiple times in the Post.

Plus, lets not forget that player skill and multiple item transformations comes into account. A high skill blacksmith can improve the quality of raw Iron ore when;
a) Smelting the Ore into Ingots/Bars/Lumps
b) Smelting the Ore into Steel or Vos Steel
c) Forging tools/weapons/Armor Parts
d) Armorsmithing

And, the blacksmiths robe and shop also bump up the quality.

Q10 Iron ore can actually make 50+ final products.
Q25-40 Iron Ore can get close to 80Q final products.

Its the same with many resources. Something the developers would also need to take into account for each individual item. I.e. the maximum Transformation Skill possible for each item/resource.

Most people only use 60Q tools (spades/saws/pickaxes), reserving the high quality tools for special items already.

It would be really cool if your guild wanted to make some top tier blacksmith hammers and they needed to get a few 100q Branches from the North and a few High Quality Ingots from the Tundra/Steepe.

Again, everything is conceptual. I had to put rough values in otherwise it wouldn't make much sense at all.

And to your question/concersns about bulk resources. Players will find the equilibrium. Players wont sell stone, they will sell shaped stone. They wont buy Iron Ore, they will buy Ingots. They wont buy flax stems, they will buy Hanks of Linen.

Players could sell stone/Iron Ore/Flax Stems if they could find a buyer, that would be their choice.

These kind of people will likely be new players, who have plenty of TIME, but not many ingame SKILLS.

They could search a forest for 100Q trees, cut them down and sell for a profit to buy other resources.


Again, it is totally fine that we agree to disagree about possible implications and outcomes. This will be my last attempt to explain the concept to you. Thanks again for your feedback.

Examples are Importand Mate.
They dont need to be accurate.
But they do need to represent the System.

Now its Possible that your in that case just shooting yourself in the leg because you dont realize it.
But then you need to fix this.

Because this Sentence here is exactly where my Problem with your Suggestion Sits.
**
Players wont sell stone, they will sell shaped stone. They wont buy Iron Ore, they will buy Ingots.
**

For Stone this is True.
But Shaped Stone is not that much lighter to Transport.

But for Iron this is actually False.
Because to make Ingots.

You need Clay, Water, Plant Fibers, Wood, Branches and Iron Ore.

Unless you get all of these in High Quality it will be a Bad idea to Smelt Ingots because this would reduce the Quality.

So either you Import all of these.
Or you Export the Ore Directly.

Your Example Suggests.
50% Red
35% Orange
5% Blue
10% Green.

But it should go more in the Direction of.
10% Red
40% Orange
40% Blue
10% Green

And there should be Overlaps.
Every Region should Require Trade with others.
But no Region should be Required to Trade with ALL other Regions.




See if this is just a Misunderstanding due to a Bad example it might be a Good Idea to fix the Example.
Because right now it Suggests that each Good only has 1 Place where its Full Quality.
And most Places got maybe 20% Goods worth Selling and 50% Goods not even worth gathering.

[SonofKitt]

Yeah, i'm not going to change it just to please the great leader of the sun desires it changed. Its a concept. 99% of other people seem to manage just fine thinking in the hypothetical.

And I think you misunderstood and assumed the opposite below.

But for Iron this is actually False.
Because to make Ingots.

Yes i know people will make Ingots. I literally said

They wont buy Iron Ore, they will buy Ingots

If you want specifics;
20 Stone of Rock (20 Weight) = 1 Shaped rock (weighs 10 Stone) - So its half the weight.
20 Iron Ore (20 Weight) = 1 Iron Ingot (5 Stone)
So you guessed it, its a quarter the weight.

Either way, they are both considerably lighter than the raw resources. You can fit 300 Shaped Rock in the inventory alone of a horse cart. You can fit 600 Ingots into a horse cart. Plus you can put 2 wardrobes full of ingots in the horsecart = 200 Ingots. That's a lot.

Because right now it Suggests that each Good only has 1 Place where its Full Quality.

Incorrect, re-read the post please. Specifically the scarcity and regional bonuses section.

Your Example Suggests.
50% Red
35% Orange
5% Blue
10% Green.

But it should go more in the Direction of.
10% Red
40% Orange
40% Blue
10% Green

Dude, its not percentages. Its quality. I.e. in any given climate a resource could be capped by the red value, or the orange value, or the blue value or the green value. The green value means 0-100 quality is possible i.e. no cap. The values for red/orange/green could be anything. Whatever the devs want them to be. If they decided that the value for red would be 15 Quality. Hardwood Trees in the south could not produce hardwood at a quality higher than 15Q. Wheres in regions where hardwood is orange, it might be capped at say 50 Quality. the devs would have 100% control over this and could adjust the values instantly with hot fixes if things wernt right.

I have seen your other 50 page arguments (if we can call them that) with other players in the forums. I think you are of the personality who just likes to argue for arguments sake and will continue to ramble left right and centre about any topic/opinion/feature/concept that you did not think up yourself. You always cry the victim when people get annoyed at your incoherent bullet points but ultimately you only have yourself to blame. I am normally a very tolerant person so well done.

Please do read (and understand) the whole post before commenting again.

[Sunleader]

Yeah, i'm not going to change it just to please the great leader of the sun desires it changed. Its a concept. 99% of other people seem to manage just fine thinking in the hypothetical.

And I think you misunderstood and assumed the opposite below.

But for Iron this is actually False.
Because to make Ingots.

Yes i know people will make Ingots. I literally said

They wont buy Iron Ore, they will buy Ingots

If you want specifics;
20 Stone of Rock (20 Weight) = 1 Shaped rock (weighs 10 Stone) - So its half the weight.
20 Iron Ore (20 Weight) = 1 Iron Ingot (5 Stone)
So you guessed it, its a quarter the weight.

Either way, they are both considerably lighter than the raw resources. You can fit 300 Shaped Rock in the inventory alone of a horse cart. You can fit 600 Ingots into a horse cart. Plus you can put 2 wardrobes full of ingots in the horsecart = 200 Ingots. That's a lot.

Because right now it Suggests that each Good only has 1 Place where its Full Quality.

Incorrect, re-read the post please. Specifically the scarcity and regional bonuses section.

I have seen your other 50 page arguments (if we can call them that) with other players in the forums. I think you are of the personality who just likes to argue for arguments sake and will continue to ramble left right and centre about any topic/opinion/feature/concept that you did not think up yourself. You always cry the victim when people get annoyed at your incoherent bullet points but ultimately you only have yourself to blame. I am normally a very tolerant person so well done.

Please do read (and understand) the whole post before commenting again.

If you dont bother Reading Posts dont try to Answer them.
All you do is make yourself look buthurt.


As I said above.
Nobody will make Iron Ingots and Sell these around.
Instead they will have to Buy Iron Ore.

Because if they Took the High Quality Iron Ore.
And made Ingots with it.
In a Low Quality Furnace with low Quality Tools they would Ruin the Quality.
Then they could just use lower Quality Stuff to begin with.


But oh well.
Its obvious that your not interested in reasoning.
It seems that me daring to judge your suggestion has hurt your pride which wasnt my intention.
However. When decisions about potential future paths are made. Your feeling are secondary.


In its current Form this Suggestion is not Acceptable and would break the Games Economy apart.
I dont even know if it would be any improvement over the current System.


So I.ll have to oppose it.

[Monco]

SonofKitt I wouldn't even bother with Sunleader too much at this point, it's obvious that he either likes to argue for the sake of arguing or is simply a forum troll.
I don't get how he still believes the game is in a good state and the current systems in place are working great as well as the economy.

[Sunleader]

SonofKitt I wouldn't even bother with Sunleader too much at this point, it's obvious that he either likes to argue for the sake of arguing or is simply a forum troll.
I don't get how he still believes the game is in a good state and the current systems in place are working great as well as the economy.

Never Said the Game is in a Good State.
I said tgat the last Changes they made Improved the State of the Game.
And.
I am saying that your Suggestions would make it worse.


As for the rest.
If you cant handle it when others got a different opinion from yours dont visit the Forums.
And if you dont want to Argue with me it would be a Good Idea to not constantly mention or address me.

[Khroma]

SonofKitt I wouldn't even bother with Sunleader too much at this point, it's obvious that he either likes to argue for the sake of arguing or is simply a forum troll.
I don't get how he still believes the game is in a good state and the current systems in place are working great as well as the economy.

Never Said the Game is in a Good State.
I said tgat the last Changes they made Improved the State of the Game.
And.
I am saying that your Suggestions would make it worse.


As for the rest.
If you cant handle it when others got a different opinion from yours dont visit the Forums.
And if you dont want to Argue with me it would be a Good Idea to not constantly mention or address me.

Dude are you serious ?

There are constructive criticism and egotistic criticism, you are of the latter i am afraid.

This toxic nonsense argument wouldnt even have started if you had a more constructive mindset.

You just want to be the smartass in the room, and because of your ego you are ruinning probably one of the best post that could improve this game.
In top of that you ruined any chance to actually improve the examples of the OP with your feedback.

If you genuinely want to help the developpement of the game i would suggest to make an effort to be more constructive in the future.

[Sunleader]

SonofKitt I wouldn't even bother with Sunleader too much at this point, it's obvious that he either likes to argue for the sake of arguing or is simply a forum troll.
I don't get how he still believes the game is in a good state and the current systems in place are working great as well as the economy.

Never Said the Game is in a Good State.
I said tgat the last Changes they made Improved the State of the Game.
And.
I am saying that your Suggestions would make it worse.


As for the rest.
If you cant handle it when others got a different opinion from yours dont visit the Forums.
And if you dont want to Argue with me it would be a Good Idea to not constantly mention or address me.

Dude are you serious ?

There are constructive criticism and egotistic criticism, you are of the latter i am afraid.

This toxic nonsense argument wouldnt even have started if you had a more constructive mindset.

You just want to be the smartass in the room, and because of your ego you are ruinning probably one of the best post that could improve this game.
In top of that you ruined any chance to actually improve the examples of the OP with your feedback.

If you genuinely want to help the developpement of the game i would suggest to make an effort to be more constructive in the future, otherwise go f*** yourself.

1.
Funny you ask.
I have been wondering if you guys are Serious for quite a while now.


2.
Thats Factually Wrong.
I have been Providing Detailed Explanations why I think your Suggestions are Bad.
And I have also offered a wide range of Suggestions and Views on how I think you could improve your Suggestion or Prevent Negative Effects.

As such my Criticism is clearly Constructive.

Much unlike your Suggestion by the way.
Which is very Egoistical as it attempts to Enforce a Playstyle in the Game which you guys Like without any regard for those that would hate it and even with the clearly stated intention that those who dont like this would not be welcome by you anyways.


3.
This Toxic nonsense comes from you guys being unable to take Critics and thus stooping to Personal Attacks instead of bringing Arguments.
The same your doing right now again by again forcing me to answer by Addressing me Personally and then only talking about my Person without even mentioning the Topic at hand....

I even handwaved for you that I would actually like to no longer Post here because its derailing the Suggestion of someone who unlike you knows how to just accept someone elses Opinion and that I would immediately be gone if you stopped constantly calling me out.

You could have used any Topic or even a PM to complain to me and throw further personal Attacks at me.

Yet you decided to make yet another Post into this Topic that has Zero Relevance to the Topic and basicly just consists of you hurling insults at me.


4.
I Provided more than enough Constructive Feedback and Explanations. Way more than you ever did to anything I said.

For your Info Mate.
Constructive doesnt mean you have to Agree with others.
If you cannot Accept that others got a Different opinion then you. Then you should stay away from Forums.

And now since your apparently not commanding the competence to get this in your head with subtle or even less subtle comments.
Let me wave it to you with a damn long flagpole.

I DO NOT WISH TO DERAIL THIS TOPIC FURTHER BY DISCUSSING MY PERSONOR OTHER TOPICS ISSUES WITH YOU LOT.
SO DO ME AND THE OP A FAVOR AND STOP CALLING ME OUT ALL THE TIME.
IF YOU WISH TO TALK ABOUT ME OR WITH ME OPEN A FREAKING SEPERATE TOPIC FOR IT OR TAKE IT TO THE TOPIC OF THE ORIGINAL ISSUE AND I WILL GLADLY JOIN YOU THERE.
BUT STOP DERAILING THIS TOPIC BY CONSTANTLY PULLING YOUR GRUDGES AGAINST ME INTO IT...

Greetz Sun